Worboys

DeVlaeminck

Pross wrote:

Lots of people are also mentioning the other cases but as a QC said on TV this morning, at this stage those are just suspicions with no evidence which is why he wasn't tried for them. Hopefully, assuming they did occur, enough evidence will come forward that he can now be charged for them and subsequently convicted.

I'm not sure they are just suspicions with no evidence which is why he wasn't tried for them. Certainly the victims have said they were told that they had enough in him rather than their cases had insufficient evidence.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Evangelical Christians in some instances blame gays for natural disasters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 33026.html

It seems a similar thought process exists with lefties on here with the Tories.

oh before anyone points out Worboys isn't a natural disaster just stretch that mind a bit to include man made monumental errors

Like i said before, I'm well blessed if I make an error.

It was Bally who blamed Starmer for the low sentence and the (lack of) cases JW was prosecuted for under the then labour government... but thats ok because he is a labour MP, in a Labour Gov, even though the CPS has stated he had nothing to do with the worboys case.... if this is wrong then starmer is unfit to be anywhere near the shadow cabinet and should resign.

Indeterminate sentences were indeed deemed illegal by the ECHR however, they did not order the release of these people, the decision to allow their release has been made under a tory government but for some, like you and bally they are not to be held responsible for people like worboys going free.

you both say the parole board cannot be influenced by the government because they are independent, but their members are appointed by the Gov and Prof Hardwick calls for the Gov to get a grip and get on with dealing with the problem, he obv thinks the government has plenty of influence and power in this regard.....

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ntence-ipp

My anger at worboys release isnt to have ago at the tories, but because i dont want another woman raped by this animal and whoever is in power should nt be allowing the release of serial rapists after 8 years.

Mamba. Do you ever read anything you type before hitting the submit button? Your first post

Its rather ironc that coopster accused me and my left wing ilk of being soft on crime and yet after 7 years of Tory rule, we ve got Parole boards under extreme pressure to release people like Worboys with indeterminate sentences.

Since then, you have posted a link to show that the parole board is in fact independent and is not a tool of whichever party is in power.

I did highlight Starmer's role as the being DPP at the time and as such was the head of the CPS who prosecuted the case. I also highlighted the role of his boss, the AG, and the fact that no appeal against the sentence was lodged. I never mentioned their politics as they are irrelevant. I was questioning their competence.

From your article, Hardwick states

He said delays in releasing prisoners on IPPs could be reduced if the onus switched to the state to prove they were a danger to the public if they were released.

Hardwick said: “Some of those delays are down to the Parole Board, but we are making good progress in putting those right. But the other main reason for the delay is that it is so difficult for somebody in that young man’s position to meet the legal test of demonstrating that they are not going to commit a serious offence in future.

“For people with a tariff or punishment part of their sentence of less than two years, the onus should be on the state to prove they are likely to commit a further offence, rather than for them to prove they are not.

So it would seem that the boot appears to be on the other foot, he is trying to influence the government to change the rules to lower the threshold whereby prisoners are deemed to no longer be a danger.

You state that your intention isn't to have a go at the Tories, which brings us back nicely to your first post where you blamed...The Tories!

Carlin was right, I should have listened. You have all the experience on your side.

mamba80

Whats your point Bally? i d swap the label tory for labour (if these releases happened under a Labour Gov...) what do you expect me to call the tory Government?
these releases are happening under a TORY Government, you may not like that but thats a fact.

First duty of a government is to protect its citizens, as i said a while back, lets hope the sec of state challenges this decision and that further charges can be placed.

I remember when Dc was suspected of having xxxxed a pig, you defended him to the nth degree too.

Lookyhere

The PM, T.May is ordering a review into the function of the parole board, whatever political persuasion you might be, its clear the Parole board is not independent if the PM/Government can control them like this.

Perhaps the review should have taken place before Warbouys and others appeared before them.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

Lots of people are also mentioning the other cases but as a QC said on TV this morning, at this stage those are just suspicions with no evidence which is why he wasn't tried for them. Hopefully, assuming they did occur, enough evidence will come forward that he can now be charged for them and subsequently convicted.

I'm not sure they are just suspicions with no evidence which is why he wasn't tried for them. Certainly the victims have said they were told that they had enough in him rather than their cases had insufficient evidence.

As I said, those were the words of a QC being interviewed on the BBC. Wasn't he cleared of some of the charges that were brought against him? If those were charges that it was felt had stronger evidence than presumably those that weren't progressed were weaker. Hopefully after this time they have had a chance to improve that evidence and he'll now be charged and successfully prosecuted which is a better situation than taking a flyer that might get kicked out.

ballysmate

Lookyhere wrote:

The PM, T.May is ordering a review into the function of the parole board, whatever political persuasion you might be, its clear the Parole board is not independent if the PM/Government can control them like this.

Perhaps the review should have taken place before Warbouys and others appeared before them.

Purpose

4. The Parole Board is an independent body that works with its criminal justice partners to protect the public by risk assessing prisoners to decide whether they can be safely released into the community


Powers and Duties of the Parole Board

5. The Parole Board exercises judicial functions, including the power to decide upon the lawfulness of the continued detention of prisoners referred to it by the Secretary of State, and acts as a Court for the purposes of Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. As such, it must remain independent of the executive and impartial.

6. The Parole Board has a duty to advise the Secretary of State with respect to any matter referred to it by him which is related to the early release or recall of prisoners.

Powers of the Secretary of State

7. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that the following matters are within the control of the Secretary of State:

7.1 The appointment of Parole Board members in accordance with the minimum statutory requirements set out in Schedule 19 of the 2003 Act
7.2 The setting of tenure of Parole Board members
7.3 The remuneration of Parole Board members
7.4 The making of Parole Board Rules with respect to the Board’s proceedings

8. The Courts have emphasised that these powers must be exercised in a manner which does not undermine the independence and impartiality of the Parole Board.

Parole Board Constitution

Seems pretty independent to me.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Whats your point Bally? i d swap the label tory for labour (if these releases happened under a Labour Gov...) what do you expect me to call the tory Government?
these releases are happening under a TORY Government, you may not like that but thats a fact.

First duty of a government is to protect its citizens, as i said a while back, lets hope the sec of state challenges this decision and that further charges can be placed.

I remember when Dc was suspected of having xxxxed a pig, you defended him to the nth degree too.

Mamba please see my reply to Looky above. The board is independent. It is their task to assess the suitability of not of a prisoners release. I happen to agree that Warboys shouldn't be released, but that is academic.

Or is this just another example of you not blaming a political party.

As regards Cameron, what's that got to do with the price of fish.
You're just rambling now, man.

dabber

Well, the USA doesn't mess around ..... 175 years for Larry Nassar.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/24/larry-nassar-sentenced-sexual-abuse-gymnastics

rjsterry

Dabber wrote:

Well, the USA doesn't mess around ..... 175 years for Larry Nassar.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/24/larry-nassar-sentenced-sexual-abuse-gymnastics

This is worth reading - coverage of one of the victim's impact statements.

https://deadspin.com/aly-raisman-is-rea ... 1822234455

Apparently, before Raisman gave her statement, Nassar had asked the judge to be excused from listening to four days worth of victim impact statements.

john80

The reality is that you have to accept fairly high levels of risk if you are a parole board as a lot of offenders reoffend. Parole boards in many cases will not release until they can no longer refuse but in many cases it is a numbers game. The UK has a prison population capacity and that cannot realistically be breached for long periods. High levels of occupancy also lead to poorer rehabilitation outcomes.

Whilst they try to keep the most dangerous in they have finite limits to detain people in all but a few cases and then early parole sometimes becomes a necessity due to population numbers. At the end of the day prisons work as there is not too many people commit crimes against the general population whilst at her majesty's pleasure. But are we willing to pay for this protection.

We could probably half burglaries for example by putting a life tariff on anyone caught with stolen possessions or in the act. Would society live with the human cost of this decision making process when Aunty Maude is doing life for buying a TV off Johnny down the pub.

Lookyhere

john80 wrote:

The reality is that you have to accept fairly high levels of risk if you are a parole board as a lot of offenders reoffend. Parole boards in many cases will not release until they can no longer refuse but in many cases it is a numbers game. The UK has a prison population capacity and that cannot realistically be breached for long periods. High levels of occupancy also lead to poorer rehabilitation outcomes.

Whilst they try to keep the most dangerous in they have finite limits to detain people in all but a few cases and then early parole sometimes becomes a necessity due to population numbers. At the end of the day prisons work as there is not too many people commit crimes against the general population whilst at her majesty's pleasure. But are we willing to pay for this protection.

We could probably half burglaries for example by putting a life tariff on anyone caught with stolen possessions or in the act. Would society live with the human cost of this decision making process when Aunty Maude is doing life for buying a TV off Johnny down the pub.

I do not see what you are saying is relevant to Worboys.

Its the lack of transparency, why did the Parole board see fit to release a guy who up until 2015 was pleading his innocence? and who has never been involved in any sort of rehabilitation, he was in a top security prison at the time of his hearing.

Undoubtedly prison have people in there who shouldnt be, the mentally ill or tax dodgers! too many short sentences, Worboys however, was convicted of very serious crimes and it ll be of no comfort to his next victims to here he was released as part of a numbers game.

john80

Lookyhere wrote:

john80 wrote:

The reality is that you have to accept fairly high levels of risk if you are a parole board as a lot of offenders reoffend. Parole boards in many cases will not release until they can no longer refuse but in many cases it is a numbers game. The UK has a prison population capacity and that cannot realistically be breached for long periods. High levels of occupancy also lead to poorer rehabilitation outcomes.

Whilst they try to keep the most dangerous in they have finite limits to detain people in all but a few cases and then early parole sometimes becomes a necessity due to population numbers. At the end of the day prisons work as there is not too many people commit crimes against the general population whilst at her majesty's pleasure. But are we willing to pay for this protection.

We could probably half burglaries for example by putting a life tariff on anyone caught with stolen possessions or in the act. Would society live with the human cost of this decision making process when Aunty Maude is doing life for buying a TV off Johnny down the pub.

I do not see what you are saying is relevant to Worboys.

Its the lack of transparency, why did the Parole board see fit to release a guy who up until 2015 was pleading his innocence? and who has never been involved in any sort of rehabilitation, he was in a top security prison at the time of his hearing.

Undoubtedly prison have people in there who shouldnt be, the mentally ill or tax dodgers! too many short sentences, Worboys however, was convicted of very serious crimes and it ll be of no comfort to his next victims to here he was released as part of a numbers game.

It is not just the low security prisons that have a population limit. High security prisons have a limit too and this unfortunately plays a part. Of course it will be of no comfort to the victims however the original points still stands. We only want to pay for a certain capacity and therefore all release decisions have to be taken with this in mind. He is a convicted rapist and stands a pretty good chance of doing something bad again probably inline with his fellow rapists. I personally don't have a problem building a 120000 prison capacity and then if we don't need them putting the facility into care and maintenance until it is needed if this is the answer as the building is relatively cheap compared to keeping the prisoners and paying the staff. It can't be easy running a prison service as you will have a budget, a group of dangerous individuals handed to you by the courts and only historical data on which to base your future planning upon. Demand is affected by the economy and sentencing guidelines which you can't predict. We seem to be hanging the parole board out to dry when I have not really seen much evidence that the process they followed was not the norm.

If the argument is why are we letting any rapist have early parole then by all means we as a population can have that debate but at least factor in the 1-2 year build time for 10 jails to house additional people in any changes that are brought in. Do the victims of Warboy's feel any more pain than any other equally violent rapists victim? As for the mentally ill if they are committing crimes then they should be in there. I would not feel any less aggrieved if a crime was committed against me because the person has a mental illness.